Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to John2 I don't know how to make a fancy chart but I see things this way. How does this look? ... With Q, there is no need for Hebrew Matthew, and multiple translations, and Greek Matthew. What evidence do you have for multiple translations in the make up of Greek Mathew? That's what I asked in my...

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:26 pm

How does this look?

Ha! Very cool (and unexpected).

I don't know how to make a fancy chart but I see things this way. Mark and the Hebrew Matthew (aka "the gospel of the Hebrews") were written first (in whichever order), then multiple translations were made of the Hebrew Matthew, parts of which (along with Mark) were incorporated into the NT Matthew ...

That's very interesting, Ben. And while I take seriously what Papias says about Mark following Peter and his gospel reflecting Peter's teaching, and thus "bene" would make sense under the assumption that Peter taught in Hebrew, at the same time it's hard for me to let go of MacDonald's idea that the...

There is a simpler solution. Those citing Papias had no clue about the original language, and frankly didn't care. Their objective was to justify the binding order of the four gospels with Matthew first, before Mark. By saying he wrote in Hebrew helped give priority to Matthew, since it dovetailed ...

Interesting. Note Steven Avery's intimate association with these ideas. https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/jerome-and-the-hebrew-matthew-not-canonical-matthew.543/ https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-shem-tiob-matthew-used-for-sinaiticus.997/ Thanks Steve! Other people (such ...

While I don't think Papias is referring to the NT Matthew, I do think the NT Matthew might have incorporated (parts of) one or more translations of the Hebrew Matthew that Papias is referring to, and I think that Papias' Hebrew Matthew is the same one that is later said to have been used by Nazarene...

Yes I was at work and remembered Watson's point incorrect. You've got me on that. But no it's possible or very unlikely that Eusebius is telling us the truth here. But why do you have to make the same point in two different threads? You seem to think that: Eusebius is telling the truth about Irenae...

And can we also say that it is at least possible that Papias and Clement were in agreement regarding everything that Eusbeius says was in the eighth book of Clement's Outlines? And that, since Eusebius at least says where he got the information (and thus it could have been checked), that Clement at ...

Like you're going to search for it. Here it is again https://books.google.com/books?id=hCh9kPyvhaEC&pg=PA431&dq=cassiodorus+eusebius+clement+papias&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjBs9muhpboAhWeIjQIHabvDzYQ6AEwAHoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=cassiodorus%20eusebius%20clement%20papias&f=false I ...